Blizzard is working on updating Warcraft and Warcraft II to allow
their real-time strategy classics to work on current PCs, the company revealed
over the weekend at the BlizzCon extravaganza.
Polygon quotes World of Warcraft production director J. Allen Brack's
response to a question about the games by saying a "side project" is in the
works related to being able to play these older games, though he hedges saying
this will be "to do something like that in some form or fashion." Here's the
full quote:

So, we actually have a guy on our team — actually several guys
on our team — who are actually working on a side project to do something like
that in some form or fashion. We're fans of Warcraft 1, Warcraft 2, Warcraft 3,
and we'd love to replay those games for sure.

Post CommentEnter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.

42.

Warcraft and Warcraft II Coming to Modern PCs "In Some Form or Fashion"

Yosemite Sam wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 18:09:Warcraft has to be one of my favorite RTS games. I really liked CoH but so much got lost in RTS games when having to get your own resources got dropped from the genre. Chopping down trees and mining added so much to a game, but I guess all that work and time was too much for the ADD crowd. Now were lucky if you have to gather even one resource never mind two.

Not ADD, but still don't like the old resource management options. You're penalized too hard for losing early foragers. You still have to gather resources in CoH, but it's more objective based, which is better for the game.

... and that's different then say losing your first few units in CoH? All RTS games are going to be painful if you lose units early in the game. The only real difference between the games is pace. CoH is a fast paced over quick game. Warcraft and the like are more strategy, building and resource based games that take more time and planning to play. I'll take another AoE over Warhammer any day of the week, but we'll never see it because most people simply don't want to invest the time or thought into it. ADD is an exaggeration but it's basically true.

CoH was less punishing for losing early units. Less focus on micro, more on macro. *craft games are completely focused on micro, for people that are doped up on ritalin.

Um you got your micro and macro backwards. CoH requires micro, you can't simply macro in CoH or you'll get slaughtered. You have to get right in there and micro manage all your individual units for best position and cover or you'll lose them. Dunno where you get the idea *craft games are completely focused on micro, base building and resource collecting are macro, micro is when you finally engage the enemy. If anything the *craft games have a balance between micro and macro, it's CoH that's heavily focused on micro.

EDIT heh all this CoH talk has me itching to fire up a game... must resist, must do chores, GTA has been eating way too much into my other activities this last month... must put down the games for awile, must resist temptation to just play games 24\7...

Because of build queues, passive resource collection, passive building, simple upgrade methods, and low population caps, CoH is much less micro. In *craft you must monitor all of your units and buildings even while you are sending out all your units because lost seconds of building results in a loss very fast, unlike CoH where you hit a population cap fairly quickly and instead just make sure you have a queue.